Determining scientific performance of some of Laboratory Animal journals in veterinary Science with the ethical approach

Bu araştırma veteriner bilimlerinde rat ve fareyle yapılan ve laboratuar hayvanlarıyla ilgili dergilerde yayımlanan çalışmaların bilimsel performanslarını etik yaklaşımla değerlendirmek için gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışma kapsamında incelenen dergiler şunlardır: ATLA- Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, Comparative Medicine, Experimental Animals, Lab Animal, Laboratory Animals, ve Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science. Bu dergiler, ISI “Web of Science” veri tabanı kullanılarak araştırılmış, rat ve fareyle ilgili bilimsel yayınların fazla olduğu dergiler araştırılmak üzere seçilmiştir. 1998 ile 2007 yılları arasında farelerle ilgili 519 bilimsel çalısmanın yayımlandığı tespit edilmiştir. Aynı tarihlerde ratlarla yapılan bilimsel çalışma sayısı ise 190 olarak belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, farelerle yapılan calışmaların yukarıda belirtilen dergilerde aldığı ortalama atıf sayısının ratlarla gerçekleştilen çalışmaların üzerinde olduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

sıçan, veri tabanı, veteriner bilimleri, deney hayvanları, fareler, yayınlar

Veteriner BilimleriAlanında yayımlanan bazı laboratuar hayvanları dergilerinin bilimsel performanslarının etik yaklaşımla değerlendirilmesi

The present study was conducted to analyses the scientific performance of the veterinary studies with considering ethicalapproach which were published in laboratory animal journals by using rat and mouse. The following journals were investigatedin this study: ATLA- Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, Comparative Medicine, Experimental Animals, Lab Animal, LaboratoryAnimals, and Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science. These journals (sourced from ISI Web of Science database)were selected on the basis that they included too many publications with rats and mice. The present study determined thatthere were 519 articles between 1998-2007 years relating to mice being used in laboratory animal studies. Furthermore, 190of the articles were published with rats at the same period. It was also found that the average citation of mice publishes washigher than rats in all journals.

Keywords:

rats, databases, veterinary science, laboratory animals, mice, publications,

PDF

___

1.World Veterinary Association: Policy statement on animal welfare, well-being and ethology. WVA Bulletin, 7 (2): 38-39. 1991.
2.Robertson S: What is pain? JAVMA, 221 (2): 202-205. 2002.
3.Anonymous: Laboratory animals: statisti cal reports. http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/reports_ en.htm. 2005. Accessed: 06.01.2009.
4.Shapiro LS: Why Animals Are Needed in Research? In, Applied Animal Ethics, Delmar, USA, pp. 137-149, 2000.
5.Home Office: Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals, Great Britain (2000). htt p://www.archive.offi cial-documents.co.uk/ document/cm52/5244/524402.pdf. 2001. Accessed: 03.03.2010.
6.Home Office: Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals, Great Britain (2005). htt p://www.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/ spanimals05.pdf. 2006. Accessed: 03.03.2010.
7.Home Office: Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals, Great Britain (2008). htt p://www.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/ spanimals08.pdf. 2009. Accessed: 03.03.2010.
8.Hobson-West P: The role of ‘public opinion’ in the UK animal research debate. J Med Ethics, 36 (1): 46-49. 2010.
9.Fenwick N, Griffin G, Gauthier C: The welfare of animals used in science: How the “Three Rs” ethic guides improvements. Can Vet J, 50 (5): 523-530, 2009.
10.Obora S, Kurosawa T: Implementation of the three Rs in biomedical research - has the turn of the century turned the tide? ATLA, 37 (2): 197-207. 2009.
11.Izmirli S: Türkiye’de veteriner hekimler, veteriner hekimliği öğrencileri, hayvan sahipleri ve toplumun hayvan gönenci (refahi) tutumlari üzerine anket çalışması. Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sağlik Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya, Turkiye, 2009.
12.Gardner RM, Goldberg AM: Pain-free animals: An acceptable refi nement. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences - Review progress made toward the 3Rs, Tokyo-Japan, p. 145-149, 2008.
13.Asan A: SCI-Expanded, SSCI, AHCI and impact factor. Proceedings of 3. National Symposium, Turkey, p. 221-263, 2005.
14.Levitt JM, Thelwall M: The most highly cited library and information science arti cles: interdisciplinarity, first authors and citati on patterns. Scientometrics, 78 (1): 45-67, 2009.
15.Garfi eld E: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295 (1): 90-93, 2006.
16.Thomson Reutors: Science: The Thomson Reuters impact factor. htt p://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/ free/essays/impact_factor/. Accessed: 07.03.2010.
17.Zhao S, Liu E, Chu Y, Zheng H, Kitajima S, Morimoto M: Numbers of publications related to laboratory animals. Scand J Lab Anim Sci, 34 (2): 81-86, 2007.
18.Toth LA, Compton S, Tolwani R: The AALAS Journals: 2009 in review. Comparati ve Medicine, 60 (1): 8-9, 2010.
19.ISI Web of Science: htt p://apps.isiknowledge.com/UA_ GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSe arch&SID=Y1c2Il4GnniP2KGNO6j&preferencesSaved=, Accessed: 07.03.2010.
20.Garfi eld E: The use of journal impact factors and citation analysis for evaluation of science. Presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Council of Biology Editors, Salt Lake City, April 17, 1998 - May 04, 1998.
21.Knight A: The poor contribution of chimpanzee experiments to biomedical progress. J Appl Anim Welf Sci, 10 (4): 281-308, 2007.